1. Ban detachable magazines of greater than 10 round capacity. Some high capacity guns will therefore have to be banned as well, such as the .22 with 100 round drum. Internal magazines limited to existing models of .22 and antique/reproduction firearms.

2. Trade or buy back existing inventory of high capacity detachable magazines over a period of time after which possession is a felony.

3. Universal background checks for each purchase. FFL license holders required to handle paperwork for background check and transfer at a set cost much like the state automobile inspection system cost is set.

5. Any weapon used in a crime traced to last legal owner, if improperly transferred last legal owner now classified as legal conspirator for said crime.

6. Registration card required for all purchases of firearms or ammunition. This is part of the background check the FFL holder will make. If purchasing ammo not supported by a registered gun, the system will flag the holder for investigation to determine reason. information compared to voter registration and drivers license, with any possible change of address flagged.

7. Registration card requires proof of training to handle weapon safely and to undergo a psyche evaluation. Renewal on regular basis including evaluation.

FBI Director James Comey said the man accused of killing nine people in a Charleston, S.C., church should never have been allowed to purchase a weapon.

Comey said flaws in paperwork and communication between a federal background check worker and state law enforcement allowed Dylann Roof to buy a handgun in South Carolina on April 16 — weeks before he allegedly attacked black churchgoers in a failed attempt to fuel a race war.

And crack down on straw purchases. The majority of guns sold illegally via a straw purchase happen from a small percentage of gun dealers. Why in the hell aren't they investigated and prosecuted more? Probably a manpower issue.

Yeah, that's what I thought, it appears that the FED's are either lax doing their job enforcing the existing laws, or just don't have the manpower or money......

"ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes. They conclude that these licensed retailers are part of a block of rogue entrepreneurs tempted by the big profits of gun trafficking. Cracking down on these dealers continues to be a priority for the ATF. "

FBI Director James Comey said the man accused of killing nine people in a Charleston, S.C., church should never have been allowed to purchase a weapon.

Comey said flaws in paperwork and communication between a federal background check worker and state law enforcement allowed Dylann Roof to buy a handgun in South Carolina on April 16 — weeks before he allegedly attacked black churchgoers in a failed attempt to fuel a race war.

And crack down on straw purchases. The majority of guns sold illegally via a straw purchase happen from a small percentage of gun dealers. Why in the hell aren't they investigated and prosecuted more? Probably a manpower issue.

Without the ability to track sales, which is severely limited by the acts of Congress, there is no way to track the straw purchases.

Although the paper records are eventually transformed into digital images, investigators' use of the computerized system is strictly limited by federal law that prohibits the creation of a searchable database based on firearms' purchasers.

<snip>

Until 2013, when the Senate confirmed B. Todd Jones as the agency's director, the ATF had been without permanent leadership for seven years, in part due to opposition mounted by gun rights groups to previous nominee Andrew Traver. Earlier this year, Jones announced his resignation, leaving the job back in the hands of an "acting'' director.

David Chipman, a former ATF special agent, said that much of the agency's inefficiency is tied to the political sway of the powerful gun rights groups who have sought to contain the authority of the ATF. "The gun lobby has been very successful at keeping the ATF as inefficient as possible,'' Chipman said.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

If you cannot enforce the laws already in place, how do expect more stringent laws to succeed, other than punishing more and more law abiding gun owners?

So you know nothing about laws or what? If you have sufficient loopholes in a law it becomes effectively unenforceable and has no effect, which is exactly what has been going on for years now.

Lack of enforcement trumps any so-called loopholes in gun laws.

Your "reasonable" gun controls seem to be designed to make gun ownership expensive and burdensome for the average or poor citizen, who will bear the costs of annual psychological testing, and the added costs of registration, background checks, etc. In addition, they would impose criminal sanctions on previous owners of a gun used in a crime without evidence of any conspiracy or intent to commit said crime on their part, a sanction designed to spread fear among owners or potential owners of guns.

If you cannot enforce the laws already in place, how do expect more stringent laws to succeed, other than punishing more and more law abiding gun owners?

So you know nothing about laws or what? If you have sufficient loopholes in a law it becomes effectively unenforceable and has no effect, which is exactly what has been going on for years now.

Lack of enforcement trumps any so-called loopholes in gun laws.

Not when you look at the statistics ... and not what the NRA puts out.

Quote:

Your "reasonable" gun controls seem to be designed to make gun ownership expensive and burdensome for the average or poor citizen,

Given the costs of both guns and ammo, especially after each new round of "they are going to take your guns, buy them now" price hikes, not those artificial hikes being removed would smooth the costs somewhat.

Quote:

who will bear the costs of annual psychological testing, and the added costs of registration, background checks, etc.

The government already bears some of the costs as do some of the owners.

Quote:

In addition, they would impose criminal sanctions on previous owners of a gun used in a crime without evidence of any conspiracy or intent to commit said crime on their part, a sanction designed to spread fear among owners or potential owners of guns.

Only if those owners break the law and tranfer a weapon illegally. If the transfer is done legally there is no liability for the transfer. If they break the law and a criminal gets a gun in order to commit a crime they are part of the conspiracy to commit that crime.

With great power comes great responsibility and the firearm is a powerful tool so there must also be powerful responsibility.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Not when you look at the statistics ... and not what the NRA puts out.

I'm speaking of decisions made at all levels, from the officer on the street, to the prosecuting attorneys, and their respective agencies, about whether arrests and prosecution will occur for certain offenses. I doubt that there are statistics for that. I'm not sure what statistics you refer to-we may be talking about different things.

Wayne Stollings wrote:

Given the costs of both guns and ammo, especially after each new round of "they are going to take your guns, buy them now" price hikes, not those artificial hikes being removed would smooth the costs somewhat.

The law of supply and demand applies to guns and ammunition, just as it does to all commodities, and is irrelevant to my point. I am speaking of costs imposed by government regulation, that are outside of market driven forces. Those 'artificial' costs are burdensome, and are often designed to place limits on the ability of people to participate in that market, as was done with tobacco products.

Wayne Stollings wrote:

The government already bears some of the costs as do some of the owners.

C'mon, the government is us!

Wayne Stollings wrote:

Only if those owners break the law and tranfer a weapon illegally. If the transfer is done legally there is no liability for the transfer. If they break the law and a criminal gets a gun in order to commit a crime they are part of the conspiracy to commit that crime.

If someone tranfers a weapon illegally, then they that is the crime that they committed. To be guilty of conspiracy, a person would have to transfer the gun to a second party with the foreknowledge and intent that it would be used by the second party to commit a crime. The legality of the transfer is actually irrelevant. No new laws are needed, persons can be prosecuted under existing laws.

Wayne Stollings wrote:

With great power comes great responsibility and the firearm is a powerful tool so there must also be powerful responsibility.

Agreed. We just disagree about the structure and details of that responsibility.

(I apologize in advance for my editing, hope my post can be understood.)

Not when you look at the statistics ... and not what the NRA puts out.

I'm speaking of decisions made at all levels, from the officer on the street, to the prosecuting attorneys, and their respective agencies, about whether arrests and prosecution will occur for certain offenses. I doubt that there are statistics for that. I'm not sure what statistics you refer to-we may be talking about different things.

I beloeive that is called an assumption since there is nothing invovled but a belief. The fact is that three of the last fireatms I have purchased were from individuals with no background check performed. Only one of those people knew me in any way. That is anaecdotal information, but it indicates the statisics of private sale weapons beinb used in a crime have a personal experience support.

Quote:

Wayne Stollings wrote:

Given the costs of both guns and ammo, especially after each new round of "they are going to take your guns, buy them now" price hikes, not those artificial hikes being removed would smooth the costs somewhat.

The law of supply and demand applies to guns and ammunition, just as it does to all commodities, and is irrelevant to my point.

Why is it irrelevant to the discussion if the side you support creates fake supply and demand issues through lies and deception to increase the cost to consumers?

Quote:

I am speaking of costs imposed by government regulation, that are outside of market driven forces.

Costs are costs regardless of their source. A political belief in one or the other does not make the cost decrease.

Quote:

Those 'artificial' costs are burdensome, and are often designed to place limits on the ability of people to participate in that market, as was done with tobacco products.

Yes, tobacco is subject to extensive "sin taxation" due to the impact of health costs relating to ist use, but that is not what is being discussed. I could forsee that approach being used at some point if the health impact of firearms is not lessened, which preventing acquistion by some and adequate training for all would be expaected to do.

Quote:

Wayne Stollings wrote:

The government already bears some of the costs as do some of the owners.

C'mon, the government is us!

Fewer of us every week as a result.

Quote:

Wayne Stollings wrote:

Only if those owners break the law and tranfer a weapon illegally. If the transfer is done legally there is no liability for the transfer. If they break the law and a criminal gets a gun in order to commit a crime they are part of the conspiracy to commit that crime.

If someone tranfers a weapon illegally, then they that is the crime that they committed. To be guilty of conspiracy, a person would have to transfer the gun to a second party with the foreknowledge and intent that it would be used by the second party to commit a crime. The legality of the transfer is actually irrelevant. No new laws are needed, persons can be prosecuted under existing laws.

No new laws would be needed? There is no law requiring a background check for private transfer now. Thus, there is no illegal sale by an individual now unless they can be proven to have been in the business, which is nearly impossilbe. Do you know how many guns you can sell before you are considered in the business? The law does not state any level. Thus the first defense is disbelief they were doing anything illegal and the ability to convict goes through the floor.

The knowledge level is not required if the laws specifies the criteria. Just like the legal criteria stating that anyone killed in the execution of a felony is automatically classified as first degree murder ... even if there was no intent to harm anyone by the criminals involved. It also applies to every person involved with the crime even if they were not present at the time. The get away driver for example is chatged the same as anyone else involved even if all they were doing is driving. It is the big stick to help people make a better choice and not do someyhing illegal.

You are believeing too much of the gun lobby propaganda.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

This data show only between 3 and 11 percent of criminals acquired their firearms in a manner which would have required a background check. There is a reason for that low percentage. They cannot pass a background check so they have to use other means.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I beloeive that is called an assumption since there is nothing invovled but a belief. The fact is that three of the last fireatms I have purchased were from individuals with no background check performed. Only one of those people knew me in any way. That is anaecdotal information, but it indicates the statisics of private sale weapons beinb used in a crime have a personal experience support.

My comment is based on personal experience and anecdotal information as well.

Wayne Stollings wrote:

Why is it irrelevant to the discussion if the side you support creates fake supply and demand issues through lies and deception to increase the cost to consumers?

You have proposed a ban on certain magazines. Others on your side have called for bans on handguns, bans on "assault" rifles (speaking of lies and deception!), and bans on all firearms. This threat is real, and naturally has an effect on prices, just as the threat of war in the Middle East affects oil prices.

Wayne Stollings wrote:

Yes, tobacco is subject to extensive "sin taxation" due to the impact of health costs relating to ist use, but that is not what is being discussed. I could forsee that approach being used at some point if the health impact of firearms is not lessened, which preventing acquistion by some and adequate training for all would be expaected to do.

This approach has been proposed by your side, and will be the natural evolution of "reasonable" gun control laws, in my opinion.

Wayne Stollings wrote:

No new laws would be needed? There is no law requiring a background check for private transfer now. Thus, there is no illegal sale by an individual now unless they can be proven to have been in the business, which is nearly impossilbe. Do you know how many guns you can sell before you are considered in the business? The law does not state any level. Thus the first defense is disbelief they were doing anything illegal and the ability to convict goes through the floor.

Background checks for all sales of handguns are required in the state that I live in. And in many, if not most others. Irregardless, breaking one law does not make someone guilty of a second crime unless the first crime was committed to facilitate the second. Please check the legal definition of conspiracy.

Wayne Stollings wrote:

The knowledge level is not required if the laws specifies the criteria. Just like the legal criteria stating that anyone killed in the execution of a felony is automatically classified as first degree murder ... even if there was no intent to harm anyone by the criminals involved. It also applies to every person involved with the crime even if they were not present at the time. The get away driver for example is chatged the same as anyone else involved even if all they were doing is driving. It is the big stick to help people make a better choice and not do someyhing illegal.

You are believeing too much of the gun lobby propaganda.

Is the guy who supplied the getaway car charged? He is not, unless it can be proved that he knowingly provided it for the purpose of aiding in the crime. If I sell a car to someone who drinks alcohol, should I be charged if they have an accident with it? Again, check the legal definition of conspiracy. Making people strictly responsible for crimes committed by others would be a dangerous precedent to set.

I'm not sure where the propaganda comment came from. There is plenty of it, from both sides of the issue, but I am expressing my own thoughts here.

This data show only between 3 and 11 percent of criminals acquired their firearms in a manner which would have required a background check. There is a reason for that low percentage. They cannot pass a background check so they have to use other means.

The data in your reference seems pretty scant regarding where/how criminals actually get guns. Do you have anything regarding how many stolen guns end up being used in crimes?